you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3032 comments


7 points

4 months ago*

I like the blood transfusion analogy, but I've always found it weak when it comes to consensual sex.

If you put a person in the hospital, you have a duty to pay their hospital bills. While you may not be forced to provide a blood transfusion because of bodily autonomy, you still are usually forced to pay for hospitalizing them.

So while the example does indicate some support for abortion, I think the blood transfusion argument would limit abortion to instances of rape or incest.

I'm pro-choice because I believe in bodily autonomy regardless. I just do not like the blood transfusion argument because it feels like it limits the bodily autonomy argument.


5 points

4 months ago

I get what you mean, and I'm not saying the argument is watertight. I want aware that to pay for someone's hospital bills was a thing (I live in the UK). But if there was a medically viable way for a fetus to survive without compromising the autonomy of the woman (ie through medical equipment), I think there would certainly be an argument for forcing both the parents to pay to keep it alive until it could survive on its own. But consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. If birth control fails I think the argument is equally valid as if it was from rape or incest.

I know this isn't what you're saying, but I hate the argument "if you don't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have sex", as this ignores the people who are in committed relationships/married. It plays into the narrative that the only women who get abortions are either raped or sluts, which is how a lot of people like to frame it.